Canadian Cases in Public International Law in 2019

IF 0.4 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international Pub Date : 2020-11-01 DOI:10.1017/cyl.2020.21

Gib van Ert

{"title":"Canadian Cases in Public International Law in 2019","authors":"Gib van Ert","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2020.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The appellants, Stensia and Richard Tapambwa, were a married couple and citizens of Zimbabwe who both served in its army. They left the country in 2001 for the United States, then came to Canada in 2011. They made no claim for refugee protection in the United States but made such a claim in Canada. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found the Tapambwas excluded from protection by section 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1 on the ground that there were serious reasons to believe they were complicit in crimes against humanity committed by the Zimbabwe National Army. The RPD nevertheless went on to consider the substance of their claims and concluded that, even if they were not excluded by section 98, they faced nothing more than a remote risk of persecution in Zimbabwe and therefore were not refugees under section 96. Nor were the Tapambwas or their children persons in need of protection under section 97. Later, the Immigration Division determined the Tapambwas inadmissible for crimes against humanity and ordered their deportation. They sought","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"57 1","pages":"558 - 592"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cyl.2020.21","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2020.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The appellants, Stensia and Richard Tapambwa, were a married couple and citizens of Zimbabwe who both served in its army. They left the country in 2001 for the United States, then came to Canada in 2011. They made no claim for refugee protection in the United States but made such a claim in Canada. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found the Tapambwas excluded from protection by section 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1 on the ground that there were serious reasons to believe they were complicit in crimes against humanity committed by the Zimbabwe National Army. The RPD nevertheless went on to consider the substance of their claims and concluded that, even if they were not excluded by section 98, they faced nothing more than a remote risk of persecution in Zimbabwe and therefore were not refugees under section 96. Nor were the Tapambwas or their children persons in need of protection under section 97. Later, the Immigration Division determined the Tapambwas inadmissible for crimes against humanity and ordered their deportation. They sought

查看原文